Sightings by Terry Teachout - WSJ.com: Nina Raine's "Tribes," which opened off-Broadway earlier this month, is a superb new play about a dysfunctional family whose youngest member is deaf. Beautifully staged by David Cromer, it was hailed by the critics, myself included, and has extended its run through September. This was the last sentence of my review: "Why can't we have plays like this on Broadway?"
Saturday, March 31, 2012
Why Straight Plays Can't Make It on Broadway
Sightings by Terry Teachout - WSJ.com: Nina Raine's "Tribes," which opened off-Broadway earlier this month, is a superb new play about a dysfunctional family whose youngest member is deaf. Beautifully staged by David Cromer, it was hailed by the critics, myself included, and has extended its run through September. This was the last sentence of my review: "Why can't we have plays like this on Broadway?"
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
10 comments:
This article really opened my eyes to a new perspective of thought on why there are so many Broadway musicals instead of plays. While I had thought that the reason there are so many musicals was because it was what the audience liked, I never stopped to think about the producers angle. While monetarily, it is a better decision to support musicals on Broadway, it is sad that there may be many plays that are being ignored. From Broadway, we have been able to see the immense success of plays, like Death of a Salesman and Who's Afraid of Virginia Wolfe?. And because in today's society, there is that huge empasis on the musical, there very well be a lot of plays that are being ignored.
It's a shame that people outside of New York seem to judge theatre mostly by what is on Broadway. Of course they aren't really to blame, since that is all that gets written about and advertised. Even in areas surrounding New York, such as Long Island and upstate, the only ads one sees at train or bus stations are for Broadway shows. With the rising cost of broadway tickets, off-broadway could probably stand to make some real impact if they were able to market themselves to these people. A full family trip to an off-broadway show can be just as fulfilling of a "New York experience" and cost a lot less. From there, word of mouth can spread, and maybe new plays can get some attention. It's all about the advertising, and if ads are well-placed, producers might take bigger risks and start putting newer plays in the spotlight.
I think that it simply boils down to the fact that if people are going to spend that much money on going to see a show they want a spectacle and something that they can leave the theater singing. Straight plays have a rep of being both boring and stuffy and not really something that you can take the whole family to. Also people specifically go to New York to see musicals because it is harder to find non-Broadway musicals in the world outside of Times square, where as to find a straight show at a regional theater is easy. There are just different venues for different types of shows and Broadway has become all about musicals and not at all about straight shows.
I agree with the statements that musicals are a safer bet monetarily because they are simply more upbeat and popular. People can rely on the happy musical to run a certain way. These shows are easy entertainment and they feed the audience the answers and intentions of the show most of the time. In some ways, musicals are fairly predictable and usually offers a fair bit of comedy.
Unfortunately, producers as well as audience members don't want to take a risk with the newer "straight" shows. They want some kind of guarantee and that's where the revivals come into play. And really, the audience and the money talk, they are the ones that choose the fate of Broadway. They chose more musicals and they chose not to take a chance on the new works. I hope that smaller theaters that are noted for showing new works get recognized. Maybe that will change the future of Broadway. The way it is going however, Broadway is one musical number after the next.
I completely agree with Zoe. She wrote pretty much what was going to be my comment. I really enjoy straight plays. A production of Arcadia I saw at Temple University in 1996 still resonates with me. I appreciate it as a form of art and entertainment. However, if I‘m going to NYC, and drop 37 large on the Megabus, I’m going to want to see a musical. Unfortunately, that is just the way it is. I could name all the Tony nominated musicals but only one of the plays and that is because it was made into a movie by Steven Spielberg. Sorry straight plays. No hard feelings. We can still be friends.
I have to admit I do enjoy a good musical over a straight play. I think when people think of Broadway, they tend to automatically think of the musical. It is such a grand event that is out of the ordinary. Plays are great too but a musical can take you away to another place in time with music and that is an extra special experience. This article was interesting to me. I never thought of the monetary side compared to the musical but it does make sense. You don't hear people go on and on about the new play they saw but they do about a musical. They go out and buy the CD, sing the songs, and talk about the dancing. I hope the best for the future of Broadway plays as this article doesn't sound too optimistic.
At first I usually get a little sad when I think about the lack of success of straight plays on Broadway, but honestly all of the straight plays I've seen on Broadway are not nearly as memorable as the musicals. I too love a good straight play, but the crowds that Broadway pulls in are looking for big, glamorous, flashy musicals that are typical of Broadway. If I'm going to see a straight play in New York, which I do fairly frequently, that's not the region of the city that I head towards. This is just the way that the culture surrounding Broadway has developed. There are a ton of successful straight plays in NYC, but they aren't going to be Broadway sensations.
This article brings up a very valid question, and the answer is very unfortunately due to the change in people's expectations of entertainment. With the developments in technology for both stage and screen, audiences are ready for the next biggest, brightest, most boisterous show they can get their hands on, which leaves more straight plays in the dark for lacking that flavor of pizazz. More and more audiences don't want to think; they want to be entertained. Hopefully that will change, but it's highly doubtful.
I agree that although sad to admit, flashy musicals can often cause so much more of a stir for theater audiences, create more of an impact, and thus be more memorable than straight plays. And nowadays, the need for feel good entertainment often overrides the desire to see dramatic, serious theater, making "straight plays" difficult to make it in Broadway. I also never realized this, but this article proposed a good point: one would think that straight plays would be cheaper to put on, but they are not in fact! SO much work has to be put into advertising, to make up for even more of an audience draw, and famous actors are other costly assets to making a little known or older play popular.
To be honest, Americans would much prefer to see a musical than a straight play. Musicals tend to be easier to market, but one can also be successful when it comes to selling a ticket to a play. The article gives the notion that the production budget makes a difference to the audience, and there is where I will disagree. As a potential audience member for both plays and musicals I don't care about how much had to be spent, I am just concerned with the story, and was it good or not. To boil it down, Americans are just interested in musicals right now, and not plays. With time I'm sure Americans will go back to enjoy seeing each.
Post a Comment